https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196943 Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act was treated as enabling rather than a strict pre-condition, so rectification remained maintainable despite the absence of prior court permission. A registered label mark was held to extend protection to the word element contained in it, rejecting the argument that the word mark stood outside registration. Comparing FORZID and ORZID as a whole under the anti-dissection rule and the stricter standard for pharmaceutical goods, the court found the marks deceptively similar because the overall visual, structural and phonetic resemblance was likely to confuse consumers and pose health risks. The rectification and removal of the later mark were therefore sustained. en-us Fri, 18 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196943 Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act was treated as enabling rather than a strict pre-condition, so rectification remained maintainable despite the absence of prior court permission. A registered label mark was held to extend protection to the word element contained in it, rejecting the argument that the word mark stood outside registration. Comparing FORZID and ORZID as a whole under the anti-dissection rule and the stricter standard for pharmaceutical goods, the court found the marks deceptively similar because the overall visual, structural and phonetic resemblance was likely to confuse consumers and pose health risks. The rectification and removal of the later mark were therefore sustained. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 18 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196943